Bibliography

Xuexia Liao

doi:10.1017/9781108909112.020

Acikgonul, Y. E. “Reflections on the Principle of Non-Cut Off: A Growing Concept in Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law” (2016) 47 Ocean Development & International Law 52.Google Scholar

Adede, A. “Kenya–Tanzania, Report Number 4-5,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).Google Scholar

Allott, P. “Power Sharing in the Law of the Sea” (1983) 77 American Journal of International Law 1.Google Scholar

Anderson, D. “Ireland–United Kingdom, Report Number 9-5,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. II (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).Google Scholar

Anderson, D. “Developments in Maritime Boundary Law and Practice,” in Colson, D. A. and Smith, R. W. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Volume V (Brill Nijhoff 2005).Google Scholar

Anderson, D. “Scientific Evidence in Cases under Part XV of the LOSC,” in Nordquist, M. H., Long, R., Heidar, T. H., and Moore, J. N.(eds.), Law, Science & Ocean Management (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2007).Google Scholar

Anderson, D. Modern Law of the Sea: Selected Essays (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2008).CrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, D. “Recent Decisions of Courts and Tribunals in Maritime Boundary Cases,” in Colson, D. A. and Smith, R. W. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Volume VI (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011).Google Scholar

Anderson, D. “Recent Judicial Decisions Concerning Maritime Delimitation,” in del Castillo, L. (ed.), Law of the Sea, From Grotius to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Liber Amicorum Judge Hugo Caminos (Brill Nijhoff 2015).Google Scholar

Anderson, D. “Ireland–United Kingdom, Report Number 9-5(3),” in Lathrop, C. G. (ed.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. VII (Brill Nijhoff 2016).Google Scholar

Anderson, D. “Some Recent Developments in the Law Relating to the Continental Shelf,” (1988) 6 Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law 95.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, D. “Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) – Case No. 16” (2012) 106 American Journal of International Law 817.Google Scholar

Apollis, G. Les Frontières Maritimes en Droit International: Mutations et Perspectives (Faculté de droit et des sciences économiques 1979).Google Scholar

Arbour, J.-M. “Les fondements du titre de l’Etat sur les espaces maritimes et ses rapports avec l’opération de delimitation,” in Pharand, D. and Leanza, U. (eds.), The Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone/Le Plateau continental et la zone économique exclusive (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).Google Scholar

Armas-Pfirter, F. M. “Submissions on the Outer Limit of the Continental Shelf: Practice to Date and Some Issues of Debate,” in Vidas, D. (ed.), Law, Technology and Science for Oceans in Globalisation: IUU Fishing, Oil Pollution, Bioprospecting, Outer Continental Shelf (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2010).Google Scholar

Attard, D. J. The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law (Oxford University Press 1987).Google Scholar

Beazley, P. “Technical Aspects of Maritime Boundary Delimitation” (1994) 1 Maritime Briefing 1.Google Scholar

Beigzadeh, E. “La Commission des Limites du Plateau Continental” (2000) 5 Annuaire du Droit de la Mer 71.Google Scholar

Benjamin, S. “France (French Guiana)–Suriname, Report Number 3-11,” in Lathrop, C. G. (ed.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. VIII (Brill Nijhoff 2019).Google Scholar

Benzing, M. “Evidentiary Issues,” in Zimmermann, A., Tomuschat, C., Oellers-Frahm, K., and Tams, C. J. (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2nd ed., Oxford University Press 2012).Google Scholar

Bowett, D. “Islands, Rocks, Reefs, and Low-Tide Elevations in Maritime Boundary Delimitations,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Volume I (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).Google Scholar

Bowett, D. The Legal Regime of Islands in International Law (Oceana Publications, Inc. 1979).Google Scholar

Brekke, H. “Defining and Recognizing the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf in the Polar Regions,” in Powell, R. C. and Dodds, K. (eds.), Polar Geopolitics? Knowledges, Resources and Legal Regimes (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 2014).Google Scholar

Brekke, H. and Symonds, P. “Submarine Ridges and Elevations of Article 76 in Light of Published Summaries of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” (2011) 42 Ocean Development & International Law 289.Google Scholar

Brown, E. D. The Legal Regime of Hydrospace (Stevens & Sons 1971).Google Scholar

Brown, E. D. “The Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case” (1978) 16 San Diego Law Review 461.Google Scholar

Brown, E. D. Sea-Bed Energy and Minerals: The International Legal Regime (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1992).Google Scholar

Brownlie, I. Principles of Public International Law (7th ed., Oxford University Press 2008).Google Scholar

Busch, S. V. Establishing Continental Shelf Limits beyond 200 Nautical Miles by the Coastal State: A Right of Involvement for Other States? (Brill Nijhoff 2016).Google Scholar

Busch, S. V. “The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nm: Procedural Issues,” in Elferink, Alex G. Oude, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Caflisch, L. “Les zones maritimes sous juridiction nationale, leurs limites et leur delimitation,” in Bardonnet, D. and Virally, M. (eds.), Le nouveau droit international de la mer (Pedone 1983).Google Scholar

Caflisch, L. “The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes on Maritime Delimitation,” in Basedow, J., Magnus, U., and Wolfrum, R. (eds.), The Hamburg Lectures on Maritime Affairs 2009 & 2010 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2012).Google Scholar

Carleton, C. M. “Delimitation Issues,” in Cook, P. J. and Carleton, C. M. (eds.), Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface (Oxford University Press 2000).Google Scholar

Carleton, C. M., Shipman, S., Monahan, D., and Parson, L. “The Practical Realisation of the Continental Shelf Limit,” in Cook, P. J. and Carleton, C. M. (eds), Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface (Oxford University Press 2000).Google Scholar

Carleton, C. M., Gautier, P., Golitsyn, M., Lodge, W., and Yanai, S. “Current Issues Regarding the Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf: A Panel Discussion in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (30 September 2012),” in Basedow, Jürgen, Magnus, Ulrich and Wolfrum, Rüdiger (eds.), The Hamburg Lectures on Maritime Affairs 2011-2013 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 2015).Google Scholar

Charney, J. I. “The United States and the Law of the Sea After UNCLOS III – The Impact of General International Law” (1983) 46 Law and Contemporary Problems 37.Google Scholar

Charney, J. I. “Ocean Boundaries between Nations: A Theory for Progress” (1984) 78 American Journal of International Law 582Google Scholar

Charney, J. I. “The Exclusive Economic Zone and Public International Law” (1985) 15 Ocean Development & International Law 233.Google Scholar

Charney, J. I. “Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law” (1994) 88 American Journal of International Law 227.Google Scholar

Charney, J. I. “International Maritime Boundaries for the Continental Shelf: The Relevance of Natural Prolongation,” in Ando, N., McWhinney, E., and Wolfrum, R. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, Volume II (Kluwer Law International 2002).Google Scholar

Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.) International Maritime Boundaries, Volume II (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).Google Scholar

Churchill, R. “Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2006” (2007) 22 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 463.Google Scholar

Churchill, R. “Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Continuity and Novelty in the Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation” (2012) 1 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 137.Google Scholar

Churchill, R. and Lowe, A. The Law of the Sea (3rd ed., Manchester University Press 1999).Google Scholar

Colson, D. “The Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf between Neighboring States” (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 91.Google Scholar

Colson, D. “The United Kingdom – France Continental Shelf Arbitration” (1978) 72 American Journal of International Law 95.Google Scholar

Cottier, T. Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2015).Google Scholar

Crawford, J. Change, Order, Chance: The Course of International Law, Vol. 365 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2013).Google Scholar

de La Fayette, L. “The Award in the Canada–France Maritime Boundary Arbitration” (1993) 8 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 77.Google Scholar

de Marffy, Mantuano A. “La Fixation des Dernières Limites Maritimes: La Rôle de la Commission des Limites du Plateau Continental,” in Coussirat-Coustère, V. (ed.), La mer et son droit: mélanges offerts à Laurent Lucchini et Jean-Pierre Quéneudec (Éditions A Pedone 2003).Google Scholar

Delabie, L. “The Role of Equity, Equitable Principles, and the Equitable Solution in Maritime Delimitation,” in Elferink, A. G. Oude, Henriksen, T., and Busch, S. V. (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Dundas, C. “Barbados–France (Guadeloupe and Martinique), Report Number 2-30,” in Colson, D. A. and Smith, R. W. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. V (Brill Nijhoff 2011).Google Scholar

Eiriksson, G. “The Case of Disagreement between the Coastal State and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf,” in Nordquist, M. H., Moore, J. N., and Heidar, T. H. (eds.), Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004).Google Scholar

Emery, K. O. “Geological Limits of the Continental Shelf” (1981) 10 Ocean Development & International Law 1.Google Scholar

Evans, M. D. Relevant Circumstances and Maritime Delimitation (Oxford University Press 1989)Google Scholar

Evans, M. D. “Maritime Delimitation and Expanding Categories of Relevant Circumstances” (1991) 40 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1.Google Scholar

Evans, M. D. “Less than an Ocean Apart: The St Pierre and Miquelon and Jan Mayen Islands and the Delimitation of Maritime Zones” (1994) 43 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 678.Google Scholar

Evans, M. D. “Delimitation and the Common Maritime Boundary” (1994) 64 British Yearbook of International Law 283.Google Scholar

Evans, M. D. “Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Where Do We Go From Here?,” in Freestone, D., Barnes, R. and Ong, D. (eds.), The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (Oxford University Press 2006).Google Scholar

Evans, M. D. “Maritime Boundary Delimitation,” in Rothwell, D. R., Oude Elferink, A. G., Scott, K. N., and Stephens, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2015).Google Scholar

Evans, M. D. “Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Whatever Next?,” in Barrett, J. and Barnes, R. (eds.), Law of the Sea: UNCLOS as a Living Treaty (British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2016).Google Scholar

Evans, M. D. “Relevant Circumstances,” in Elferink, A. G. Oude, Henriksen, T., and Busch, S. V. (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Feldman, M. B. “The Tunisia–Libya Continental Shelf Case: Geographic Justice or Judicial Compromise?” (1983) 77 American Journal of International Law 219.Google Scholar

Fietta, S. and Cleverly, R., A Practitioner’s Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation (Oxford University Press 2016).Google Scholar

Fife, R. “Denmark/The Faroes–Iceland–Norway, Report Number 9-26,” in Colson, D. A. and Smith, R. W. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. VI (Martinus Nijhoff 2011).Google Scholar

Fife, R. “Norway-Russia Federation, Report Number 9-6(3),” in Lathrop, C. G. (ed.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. VII (Brill Nijhoff 2016).Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, G. G. “Some Problems Regarding the Formal Sources of International Law”, Symbolae Verzijl (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1958).Google Scholar

Friedmann, W. “The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases – A Critique” (1970) 64 American Journal of International Law 229.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fyfe, N. and French, G. “Australia–New Zealand, Report Number 5-26,” in Colson, D. A. and Smith, R. W. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. V (Martinus Nijhoff 2005).Google Scholar

Gao, J. “The Okinawa Trough Issue in the Continental Shelf Delimitation Disputes within the East China Sea” (2010) 9 Chinese Journal of International Law 143.Google Scholar

Gao, J. “The Seafloor High Issue in Article 76 of the LOS Convention: Some Views from the Perspective of Legal Interpretation” (2012) 43 Ocean Development & International Law 119.Google Scholar

Gau, M.-S. “Third Party Intervention in the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf Regarding a Submission Involving a Dispute” (2009) 40 Ocean Development & International Law 61.Google Scholar

Gau, M.-S. “The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf as a Mechanism to Prevent Encroachment upon the Area” (2011) 10 Chinese Journal of International Law 3.Google Scholar

Gau, M.-S. “Recent Decisions by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on Japan’s Submission for Outer Continental Shelf” (2012) 11 Chinese Journal of International Law 487.Google Scholar

Guillaume, G. “The Use of Precedent by International Judges and Arbitrators” (2011) 2 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 5.Google Scholar

Hayashi, M. “Sea Level Rise and the Law of the Sea: How Can the Affected States Be Better Protected?,” in Schofield, C., Lee, S., and Kwon, M.-S. (eds.), The Limits of Maritime Jurisdiction (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2014).Google Scholar

Hedberg, H. D. “Ocean Floor Boundaries” (1979) 204 Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 135.Google Scholar

Heidar, T. H. “Legal Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits,” in Nordquist, M. H., Moore, J. N. and Heidar, T. H. (eds.), Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004).Google Scholar

Heidar, T. H. “Delimitation of the Continental Shelf and Determination of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles in Areas of Overlapping Claims: The Nordic Model,” in Lodge, M. W. and Nordquist, M. H. (eds.), Peaceful Order in the World’s Oceans: Essays in Honor of Satya N. Nandan (Brill Nijhoff 2014).Google Scholar

Henriksen, T. and Ulfstein, G. “Maritime Delimitation in the Arctic: The Barents Sea Treaty” (2011) 42 Ocean Development & International Law 1.Google Scholar

Herman, L. L. “The Court Giveth and the Court Taketh Away: An Analysis of the Tunisia–Libya Continental Shelf Case” (1984) 33 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 825.Google Scholar

Higgins, R. Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Reprinted, Oxford University Press 2010).Google Scholar

Highet, K. “Whatever Became of Natural Prolongation?,” in Dorinda, D. and de Vorsey, L. (eds.), Rights to Oceanic Resources: Deciding and Drawing Maritime Boundaries (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1989).Google Scholar

Highet, K. “The Use of Geophysical Factors in the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Volume I (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).Google Scholar

Hutchinson, D. N. “The Concept of Natural Prolongation in the Jurisprudence Concerning Delimitation of Continental Shelf Areas” (1985) 55 British Yearbook of International Law 133.Google Scholar

Hutchinson, D. N. “The Seaward Limit to Continental Shelf Jurisdiction in Customary International Law” (1986) 56 British Yearbook of International Law 111.Google Scholar

Ida, R. “The Role of Proportionality in Maritime Delimitation Revisited: The Origin and Meaning of the Principle from the Early Decisions of the Court,” in Ando, N., McWhinney, E., and Wolfrum, R. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, Volume II (Kluwer Law International 2002).Google Scholar

International Law Association, “Preliminary Report of the Committee on Legal Issues of the Outer Continental Shelf,” Report of the Seventieth Conference (New Delhi, 2002).Google Scholar

Jarmache, E. “A propos de la Commission des Limites du Plateau Continental” (2006) XI Annuaire du Droit de la Mer 51.Google Scholar

Jarmache, E. “La pratique de la Commission des Limites du Plateau Continental” (2008) 54 Annuaire français de droit international 429.Google Scholar

Jennings, R. Y. “The Limits of Continental Shelf Jurisdiction: Some Possible Implications of the North Sea Case Judgment” (1969) 18 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 819.Google Scholar

Jennings, R. Y. “The Principles Governing Maritime Boundaries,” in Hailbronner, K. (ed.), Staat und Völkerrechtsordnung, Festschrift für Karl Doehring (Springer 1989).Google Scholar

Jensen, Ø. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Law and Legitimacy (Martinus Nijhoff 2014).Google Scholar

Jensen, Ø. “Maritime Boundary Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: The International Judiciary and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” (2015) 84 Nordic Journal of International Law 580.Google Scholar

Jensen, Ø. “The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nm: Substantive Issues,” in Elferink, A. G. Oude, Henriksen, T., and Busch, S. V. (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Kamto, M. “Considérations Actuelles sur la Méthode de Délimitation Maritime devant la Cour Internationale de Justice: de Charybde en Scylla?,” in Crawford, J., Koroma, A., Mahmoudi, S., and Pellet, A. (eds.), The International Legal Order: Current Needs and Possible Responses (Brill Nijhoff 2017).Google Scholar

Karagiannis, S. “Observations sur la Commission des Limites du Plateau Continental” (1994) 8 Espaces et ressources maritimes 163.Google Scholar

Kaye, S. “The Use of Multiple Boundaries in Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Law and Practice” (1998) 19 Australian Year Book of International Law 49.Google Scholar

Kim, H.-J. “La délimitation de la frontière maritime dans le golfe du Bengale: courir deux lièvres à la fois avec succès dans le règlement de la délimitation maritime” (2012) 58 Annuaire Français de Droit International 443.Google Scholar

Kim, H.“Natural Prolongation: A Living Myth in the Regime of the Continental Shelf?” (2014) 45 Ocean Development & International Law 374.Google Scholar

Kolb, R. Case Law on Equitable Maritime Delimitation: Digest and Commentaries (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2003).Google Scholar

Kunoy, B. “A Geometric Variable Scope of Delimitations: The Impact of a Geological and Geomorphologic Title to the Outer Continental Shelf” (2006) 11 Austrian Review of International and European Law 49.Google Scholar

Kunoy, B. “Admissibility of a Plea to an International Adjudicative Forum to Delimit the Outer Continental Shelf Prior to the Adoption of Final Recommendations by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” (2010) 25 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 237.Google Scholar

Kunoy, B. “The Terms of Reference of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: A Creeping Legal Mandate” (2012) 25 Leiden Journal of International Law 109.Google Scholar

Kunoy, B. “The Delimitation of an Indicative Area of Overlapping Entitlement to the Outer Continental Shelf” (2013) 83 British Yearbook of International Law 61.Google Scholar

Kunoy, B. “Agreed Minutes on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles between Greenland and Iceland in the Irminger Sea” (2013) 12 Chinese Journal of International Law 125.Google Scholar

Kunoy, B. “Assertions of Entitlement to the Outer Continental Shelf in the Central Arctic Ocean” (2017) 66 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 367.Google Scholar

Kunoy, B., Heinesen, M. V., and Mørk, F. “Appraisal of Applicable Depth Constraint for the Purpose of Establishing the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf” (2010) 41 Ocean Development & International Law 357.Google Scholar

Kwiatkowska, B. The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1989).Google Scholar

Kwiatkowska, B. “The 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award: A Landmark in Compulsory Jurisdiction and Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation” (2007) 22 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 7.Google Scholar

Lando, M. “Delimiting the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles at the International Court of Justice: The Nicaragua v. Colombia Cases” (2017) 16 Chinese Journal of International Law 137.Google Scholar

Lando, M. “Judicial Uncertainties Concerning Territorial Sea Delimitation under Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” (2017) 66 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 589.Google Scholar

Lando, M. Maritime Delimitation as a Judicial Process (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Lathrop, C. G. “Continental Shelf Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Approaches Taken by Coastal States before the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf,” in Smith, R. W. and Colson, D. A. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Volume VI (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011).Google Scholar

Lathrop, C. (ed.), International Maritime Boundaries, Volume VII (Brill Nijhoff 2016).Google Scholar

Lathrop, C. “The Provisional Equidistance Line: Charting a Course Between Objectivity and Subjectivity?,” in Elferink, A. G. Oude, Henriksen, T., and Busch, S. V. (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, E. “Equity, Evasion, Equivocation and Evolution in International Law,” Proceedings and Committee Reports of the American Branch of the International Law Association (1977).Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, H. “De l’Interpretation des Traités: Rapport” (1950) 43 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 366.Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, H. “Sovereignty over Submarine Areas” (1950) 27 British Yearbook of International Law 376.Google Scholar

Lee, K. B. “Should the Invocation of Paragraph 5(a) of Annex I to the CLCS Rules of Procedure Result in an Automatic Deferral of the Consideration of a Submission?” (2014) 13 Chinese Journal of International Law 605.Google Scholar

Legault, L. and Hankey, B. “Method, Oppositeness and Adjacency, and Proportionality in Maritime Boundary Delimitation,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Volume I (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).Google Scholar

Legault, L. H. and Hankey, B. “From Sea to Seabed: The Single Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Case” (1985) 79 American Journal of International Law 961.Google Scholar

Liao, X. “Evaluation of Scientific Evidence by International Courts and Tribunals in the Continental Shelf Delimitation Cases” (2017) 48 Ocean Development & International Law 136.Google Scholar

Liao, X. “The Timor Sea Conciliation under Article 298 and Annex V of UNCLOS: A Critique” (2019) 18 Chinese Journal of International Law 281.Google Scholar

Lilje-Jensen, J. and Thamsborg, M. “The Role of Natural Prolongation in Relation to Shelf Delimitation beyond 200 Nautical Miles” (1995) 64 Nordic Journal of International Law 619.Google Scholar

Lloyd, S. “Natural Prolongation: Have the Rumours Its Demise Been Greatly Exaggerated” (1991) 3 African Journal of International and Comparative Law 558.Google Scholar

Lucchini, L. “La délimitation des frontières maritimes dans la jurisprudence international: vue d’ensemble,” in Lagoni, R. and Vignes, D. (eds.), Maritime Delimitation (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006).Google Scholar

Lucchini, L. and Voelckel, M. Droit de La Mer, Tome II, Délimitation (Pedone 1996).Google Scholar

Lucky, A. “The Issues Concerning the Continental Shelf: Reflections” (2015) 17 International Community Law Review 95.Google Scholar

Macnab, R. “Initial Assessment,” in Cook, P. J. and Carleton, C. M. (eds.), Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface (Oxford University Press 2000).Google Scholar

Macnab, R. “The Case for Transparency in the Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf in Accordance with UNCLOS Article 76” (2004) 35 Ocean Development & International Law 1.Google Scholar

Maggio, A. “Article 77,” in Proelss, A (ed.), The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Hart 2017).Google Scholar

Magnússon, B. M. “Denmark (Greenland)–Iceland, Report Number 9-22 (2),” in Lathrop, C. G. (ed.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. VII (Brill Nijhoff 2016).Google Scholar

Magnússon, B. The Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Delineation, Delimitation and Dispute Settlement (Brill Nijhoff 2015).Google Scholar

Magnússon, B. “Is There a Temporal Relationship between the Delineation and the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles?” (2013) 28 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 465.Google Scholar

Magnússon, B. “Outer Continental Shelf Boundary Agreements” (2013) 62 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 345.Google Scholar

Magnússon, B. “The Rejection of a Theoretical Beauty: The Foot of the Continental Slope in Maritime Boundary Delimitations beyond 200 Nautical Miles” (2014) 45 Ocean Development & International Law 41.Google Scholar

Marques, Antunes N. Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation: Legal and Technical Aspects of a Political Process (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2003).Google Scholar

Marques, Antunes N. and Becker-Weinberg, V. “Entitlement to Maritime Zones and Their Delimitation: In the Doldrums of Uncertainty and Unpredictability,” in Oude Elferink, A. G., Henriksen, T., and Busch, S. V. (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Mayer, L. “The Continental Shelf and Changing Sea Level,” in Nordquist, M. H. and Moore, J. N. (eds.), Maritime Border Diplomacy (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012).Google Scholar

Mbengue, M. M. “Scientific Fact-Finding by International Courts and Tribunals” (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 509.Google Scholar

McDorman, T. L. “The Entry into Force of the 1982 LOS Convention and the Article 76 Outer Continental Shelf Regime” (1995) 10 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 165.Google Scholar

McDorman, T. L. “The Role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: A Technical Body in a Political World” (2002) 17 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 301.Google Scholar

McDorman, T. L. “The Continental Shelf beyond 200 NM: A First Look at the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) Case,” in Nordquist, M. H., Moore, J. N., Chircop, A., and Long, R. (eds.), The Regulation of Continental Shelf Development: Rethinking International Standards (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2013).Google Scholar

McDorman, T. L. “The Continental Shelf,” in Rothwell, D. R., Oude Elferink, A. G., Scott, K. N., and Stephens, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2015).Google Scholar

McDorman, T. L. “Revisiting the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: ‘A Technical Body in a Political World,’” in Nordquist, M. H., Moore, J. N., and Long, R. (eds.), Legal Order in the World’s Oceans: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Brill Nijhoff 2017).Google Scholar

McRae, D. “The Applicable Law: The Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, the LOSC, and Customary International Law,” in Elferink, A. G. Oude, Henriksen, T., and Busch, S. V. (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

McRae, D. “Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom and France: The Channel Arbitration” (1977) 15 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 173.Google Scholar

Mendelson, M. “On the Quasi-Normative Effect of Maritime Boundary Agreements,” in Ando, N., McWhinney, E., and Wolfrum, R. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, Volume II (Kluwer Law International 2002).Google Scholar

Mensah, T. A. “Delimitation of the Continental Shelf: The Methodology,” in Sainz-Borgo, J. Carlos, Guomundsdottir, H., Guomundsdottir, G. D., Amaya-Castro, J. M., Kanade, M., Saab, Y., and Sipalla, H. (eds.), Liber Amicorum: In Honour of a Modern Renaissance Man His Excellency Guomundur (Universal Law Publishing 2017).Google Scholar

Mørk, F. “Identification of the Base of the Continental Slope on Sedimentary Fans” (2016) 47 Ocean Development & International Law 131.Google Scholar

Mouton, M. “The Continental Shelf” (1954) 85 Recueil des Cours 345.Google Scholar

Murphy, S. “International Law Relating to Islands” (2016) 386 Recueil des Cours 9.Google Scholar

Namountougou, M. A. “La Commission des Limites du Plateau Continental: Problèmes de Statut Juridique et Attributions” (2008) Revue Belge de Droit International 292.Google Scholar

Nandan, SN and Rosenne, S (eds.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Volume II (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).Google Scholar

Nandan, SN and Rosenne, S (eds.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Volume III (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1995).Google Scholar

Nelson, L. D. M. “Claims to the Continental Shelf Beyond the 200-Mile Limit,” in Philipp, C. (ed.), Liber amicorum Günther Jaenicke - Zum 85. Geburtstag (Springer 1998).Google Scholar

Nelson, L. D. M. “The Continental Shelf: Interplay of Law and Science,” in Ando, N., McWhinney, E., and Wolfrum, R. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, Volume II (Kluwer Law International 2002).Google Scholar

Nelson, L. D. M. “The Settlement of Disputes Arising from Conflicting Outer Continental Shelf Claims” (2009) 24 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 409.Google Scholar

Nelson, L. D. M. “The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and Coastal States’ Submissions,” in Hestermeyer, H. P., König, D. and Matz-Lück, N. (eds.), Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum, Volume II (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012).Google Scholar

Noyes, J. E. “Judicial and Arbitral Proceedings and the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf” (2009) 42 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1211.Google Scholar

Nweihed, K. “Trinidad and Tobago–Venezuela, Report Number 2-13(3),” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, LM (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).Google Scholar

O’Connell, D. P. The International Law of the Sea, Volume I (Shearer, I. A. ed., Oxford University Press 1982).Google Scholar

Oda, S. “Proposals for Revising the Convention on the Continental Shelf”, Fifty Years of the Law of the Sea: with a special section on the International Court of Justice: Selected Writings (Kluwer Law International 2003).Google Scholar

Oda, S. “The Continental Shelf[1955]”, Fifty Years of the Law of the Sea: with a special section on the International Court of Justice: Selected Writings (Kluwer Law International 2003).Google Scholar

Ong, D. M. “Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf and Prospects for Revenue Sharing Between States and the International Community,” in Barrett, J. and Barnes, R. (eds.), Law of the Sea: UNCLOS as a Living Treaty (British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2016).Google Scholar

Orrego Vicuña, F. The Exclusive Economic Zone: Regime and Legal Nature under International Law (Cambridge University Press 1989).Google Scholar

Orrego Vicuña, F. “La Limite Intérieure de La Limite Extérieure: Le Chevauchement de Revendications et La Délimitation Du Plateau Continental Étendu,” in Raigón, R. Casado and Cataldi, G. (eds.), L’évolution et l’état actuel du droit international de la mer: mélanges de droit de la mer offerts à Daniel Vignes (Bruylant 2009).Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. “Does Undisputed Title to a Maritime Zone Always Exclude Its Delimitation: The Grey Area Issue” (1998) 13 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 143.Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. “The Impact of the Law of the Sea Convention on the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries,” in Vidas, D. and Østreng, W. (eds.), Order for the Oceans at the Turn of the Century (Kluwer Law International 1999).Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. “Submissions of Coastal States to the CLCS in Cases of Unresolved Land or Maritime Disputes,” in Nordquist., M. H. Moore, J. N. and Heidar, T. H. (eds.), Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004).Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. “The Continental Shelf beyond 200 NM: The Relationship between the CLCS and Third Party Dispute Settlement,” in Oude Elferink, A. G. and Rothwell, D. R. (eds.), Oceans Management in the 21st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004).CrossRef Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. “Article 76 of the LOSC on the Definition of the Continental Shelf: Questions Concerning Its Interpretation from a Legal Perspective” (2006) 21 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 269.Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. “The Establishment of Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles by the Coastal State: The Possibilities of Other States to Have an Impact on the Process” (2009) 24 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 535.Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands: Arguing Law, Practicing Politics? (Cambridge University Press 2013).Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. “International Law and Negotiated and Adjudicated Maritime Boundaries: A Complex Relationship” (2015) 58 German Yearbook of International Law 231.Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. “ITLOS’s Approach to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles in the Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Theoretical and Practical Difficulties,” in Wolfrum, R., Seršić, M., and Šošić, T. (eds.), Contemporary Developments in International Law: Essays in Honour of Budislav Vukas (Brill 2015).Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. “The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles in the Arctic Ocean: Recent Developments, Applicable Law and Possible Outcomes,” in Long, R., Moore, J. N., and Nordquist, M. H. (eds.), Challenges of the Changing Arctic (Brill 2016).Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. “Paragraph 5(a) of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Solution to a Problem or Problem without a Solution?,” in Nordquist, M. H., Moore, J. N., and Long, R. (eds.), Legal Order in the World’s Oceans: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Brill Nijhoff 2017).Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. “Relevant Coasts and Relevant Area - The Difficulty of Developing General Concepts in a Case-Specific Context,” in Oude Elferink, A. G., Henriksen, T., and Busch, S. V. (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. and Johnson, C. “Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf and “Disputed Areas”: State Practice Concerning Article 76(10) of the LOS Convention” (2006) 21 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 461.Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. G. Henriksen, T. and Busch, S. V. “Conclusions,” in Elferink, Alex G. Oude, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Oude Elferink, A. “The Judiciary and the Law of Maritime Delimitation: Setting the Stage,” in Elferink, Alex G. Oude, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Oxman, B. H. “Political, Strategic, and Historical Considerations,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Volume I (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).Google Scholar

Oxman, B. H. “The Territorial Temptation: A Siren Song at Sea” (2006) 100 American Journal of International Law 830.Google Scholar

Paik, J.-H. “The Role of Proportionality in Maritime Delimitation: State of Jurisprudence,” in Hestermeyer, H. P., König, D., Matz-Lück, N., Röben, V., Seibert-Fohr, A., Stoll, P.-T., and Vöneky, S. (eds.), Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum, Volume I (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012).Google Scholar

Paik, J.-H. “The Origin of the Principle of Natural Prolongation: North Sea Continental Shelf Cases Revisited,” in del Castillo, L. (ed.), Law of the Sea, From Grotius to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Liber Amicorum Judge Hugo Caminos (Brill Nijhoff 2015).Google Scholar

Park, C.-H. “Australia–France (New Caledonia), Report Number 5-1,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).Google Scholar

Park, C.-H. “Australia–Papua New Guinea, Report Number 5-3,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).Google Scholar

Park, C.-H. “Australia–Solomon Islands, Report Number 5-4,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).Google Scholar

Park, C.-H. “Papua New Guinea–Solomon Islands, Report Number 5-16,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).Google Scholar

Parson, L. “Observations on the Article 76 Process: Coastal States” Submissions and the Work Outstanding for the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf,” in Barrett, J. and Barnes, R. (eds.), Law of the Sea: UNCLOS as a Living Treaty (British Institute of International & Comparative Law 2016).Google Scholar

Parson, L. “Article 76,” in Proelss, A. (ed.), The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Hart 2017).Google Scholar

Phillips, J. C. “The Exclusive Economic Zone as a Concept in International Law” (1977) 26 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 585.Google Scholar

Platzöder, R. (ed.), Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents, Volume I (Oceana Publications, Inc. 1982).Google Scholar

Platzöder, R. (ed.), Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents, Volume II (Oceana Publications, Inc. 1982).Google Scholar

Platzöder, R. (ed.), Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents, Volume III (Oceana Publications, Inc. 1982).Google Scholar

Platzöder, R. (ed.), Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents, Volume IV (Oceana Publications, Inc. 1982).Google Scholar

Platzöder, R. (ed.), Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents, Volume V (Oceana Publications, Inc. 1982).Google Scholar

Platzöder, R. (ed.), Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Documents, Volume XI (Oceana Publications, Inc. 1982).Google Scholar

Pratt, M. “Kenya–Tanzania, Report Number 4-5(2),” in Lathrop, C. G. (ed.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. VII (Brill Nijhoff 2016).Google Scholar

Prescott, V. “Australia–Indonesia (Timor and Arafura Seas), Report Number 6-2(2),” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, Lewis M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).Google Scholar

Prescott, V. “Australia (Heard/McDonald Islands)–France (Kerguelen Islands), Report Number 6-1,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. II (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).Google Scholar

Prescott, V. “Australia–Indonesia, Report Number 6-2(6),” in Charney, J. I. and Smith, R. W. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. IV (Martinus Nijhoff 2002).Google Scholar

Prescott, V. “Resources of the Continental Margin and International Law,” in Cook, P. J. and Carleton, C. M. (eds.), Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface (Oxford University Press 2000).Google Scholar

Prescott, V. and Schofield, C. H. The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World (2nd ed., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005).Google Scholar

Prescott, V. and Triggs, G. “Mauritius–Syechelles, Report Number 6-22,” in Colson, D. A. and Smith, R. W. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. VI (Martinus Nijhoff 2011).Google Scholar

Proelss, A. “Article 56,” in Proelss, A. (ed.), The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Hart 2017).Google Scholar

Pulvenis, J.-F. “The Continental Shelf Definition and Rules Applicable to Resources,” in Dupuy, R.-J. and Vignes, D. (eds.), A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1991).Google Scholar

Reuter, P. J.-M. “Une ligne unique de délimitation des espaces maritimes?”, Mélanges Georges Perrin (Bernard Dutoit et Etienne Grisel 1984).Google Scholar

Riddell, A. “Evidence, Fact-Finding, and Experts,” in Romano, C. P. R, Alter, K. J., and Shany, Y. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press 2013).Google Scholar

Rosenne, S. The Law and Practice of the International Court (A W Sijthoff-Leyden 1965).Google Scholar

Rosenne, S. “The Position of the International Court of Justice on the Foundations of the Principle of Equity in International Law,” in Bloed, A. and van Dijk, P. (eds.), Forty Years International Court of Justice: Jurisdiction, Equity and Equality (Europa Instituut 1988).Google Scholar

Roughton, D. and Trehearne, C. “The Continental Shelf” in Attard, D., Fitzmaurice, M., and Martinez Gutierrez, N. A. (eds.), The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law, Volume I: The Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2014).Google Scholar

Sbolci, L. “Supplementary Means of Interpretation,” in Cannizzaro, E. (ed.), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (Oxford University Press 2011).Google Scholar

Schachter, O. “Linking Equity and Law in Maritime Delimitation,” in Ando, N., McWhinney, E., and Wolfrum, R. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, Volume II (Kluwer Law International 2002).Google Scholar

Schofield, C. Telesetsky, A. and Lee, S. “A Tribunal Navigating Complex Waters: Implications of the Bay of Bengal Case” (2013) 44 Ocean Development & International Law 363.Google Scholar

Scofield, C. and Arsana, I. “Indonesia–Philippines, Report Number 5-41,” in Lathrop, C. G. (ed.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. VII (Brill Nijhoff 2016).Google Scholar

Scovazzi, T. “Where the Judge Approaches the Legislator: Some Cases Relating to Law of the Sea,” in Boschiero, N., Scovazzi, T., Pitea, C., and Ragni, C. (eds.), International Courts and the Development of International Law: Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves (TMC Asser Press 2013).Google Scholar

Serdy, A. “The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and Its Disturbing Propensity to Legislate” (2011) 26 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 355.Google Scholar

Serdy, A. “Interpretation of UNCLOS Article 76 and the Negative Recommendation of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on Ascension Island: Is the United Kingdom Stuck with It?” (2013) 2 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 591.Google Scholar

Serdy, A. “Delineation of the Outer Limits of Canada’s Arctic Ocean Continental Shelf and Its Delimitation with Neighboring States: Does It Matter Which Comes First?,” in Lalonde, S. and McDorman, T. L. (eds.), International Law and Politics of the Arctic Ocean: Essays in Honor of Donat Pharand (Brill Nijhoff 2015).Google Scholar

Shi, J. “Maritime Delimitation in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice” (2010) 9 Chinese Journal of International Law 271.Google Scholar

Simma, B. “The International Court of Justice and Scientific Expertise” (2012) 106 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 230.Google Scholar

Smith, R. W. “Mexico–United States, Report Number 1-5(2),” in Charney, J. I. and Smith, R. W. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. IV (Martinus Nijhoff 2002).Google Scholar

Smith, R. “Geographic Considerations in Maritime Boundary Delimitations,” in Dallmeyer, D. G. and DeVorsey, L. Jr. (eds.), Rights to Oceanic Resources (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1989).Google Scholar

Smith, R. W. and Taft, G. “Legal Aspects of the Continental Shelf,” in Cook, P. J. and Carleton, C. M. (eds.), Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface (Oxford University Press 2000).Google Scholar

Suarez, S. V. The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf: Legal Aspects of Their Establishment (Springer 2008).Google Scholar

Subedi, S. P. “Problems and Prospects for the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Dealing with Submissions by Coastal States in Relation to the Ocean Territory beyond 200 Nautical Miles,” (2011) 26 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 413.Google Scholar

Taft, G. “Applying the Law of the Sea Convention and the Role of the Scientific Community Relating to Establishing the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf Where It Extends Beyond the 200 Mile Limit,” in Nordquist, M. H., Long, R., Heidar, T. H., and Moore, J. N. (eds.), Law, Science & Ocean Management (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2007).Google Scholar

Taft, G. “The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf – A Force for Enhancing Stability in the Oceans (or Not)” (2010) 24 Ocean Yearbook 151.Google Scholar

Talmon, S. “Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ’s Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion” (2015) 26 European Journal of International Law 417.Google Scholar

Tams, C. J. “Article 50,” in Zimmermann, A., Tomuschat, C., Oellers-Frahm, K., and Tam, C. J. (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2nd ed., Oxford University Press 2012).Google Scholar

Tanaka, Y. “Reflections on the Concept of Proportionality in the Law of Maritime Delimitation” (2001) 16 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 433.Google Scholar

Tanaka, Y. “Reflections on Arctic Maritime Delimitations: A Comparative Analysis between the Case Law and State Practice” (2011) 80 Nordic Journal of International Law 459.Google Scholar

Tanaka, Y. The International Law of the Sea (Cambridge University Press 2012).Google Scholar

Tanaka, Y. “Reflections on the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia before the International Court of Justice” (2013) 26 Leiden Journal of International Law 909.Google Scholar

Tanaka, Y. “Article 83,” in Proelss, Alexander (ed.), The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Hart 2017).Google Scholar

Tanaka, Y. “The Disproportionality Test in the Law of Maritime Delimitation,” in Elferink, Alex G. Oude, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Tanaka, Y. Predictability and Flexibility in the Law of Maritime Delimitation (2nd ed., Hart 2019).Google Scholar

Tanja, G. J. The Legal Determination of International Maritime Boundaries: The Progressive Development of Continental Shelf, EFZ and EEZ Law (Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers 1990).Google Scholar

Tassin, V. J. M. Les défis de l’extension du plateau continental: La consécration d’un nouveau rapport de l’État à son territoire (Pedone 2013).Google Scholar

Thirlway, H. “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989: Part One” (1990) 60 British Yearbook of International Law 1.Google Scholar

Thirlway, H. “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989 Part Five” (1994) 64 British Yearbook of International Law 1.Google Scholar

Thirlway, H. “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989, Part Six” (1995) 65 British Yearbook of International Law 1.Google Scholar

Thirlway, H. “Article 30,” in Zimmermann, A., Tomuschat, C., Oellers-Frahm, K., and Tams, J. (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2nd ed., Oxford University Press 2012).Google Scholar

Thirlway, H. Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence, Volume I (Oxford University Press 2013).Google Scholar

Thirlway, H. Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence, Volume II (Oxford University Press 2013).Google Scholar

Thirlway, H. The International Court of Justice (Oxford University Press 2016)Google Scholar

Thor Gudlaugsson, S. “Natural Prolongation and the Concept of the Continental Margin for the Purposes of Article 76,” in Nordquist, M. H., Moore, J.N., and Heidar, T. H. (eds.), Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004).Google Scholar

Tomka, P. “Custom and the International Court of Justice” (2013) 12 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 195.Google Scholar

Tomuschat, C. “Article 36,” in Zimmermann, A., Tomuschat, C., Oellers-Frahm, K., and Tams, C. J. (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (3rd ed., Oxford University Press 2019).Google Scholar

Treves, T. “La limite extérieure du plateau continental: Evolution récente de la pratique” (1989) 35 Annuaire français de droit international 724.Google Scholar

Treves, T. “Remarks on Submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Response to Judge Marotta’s Report” (2006) 21 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 363.Google Scholar

Treves, T. “Law and Science in the Interpretation of the Law of the Sea Convention: Article 76 Between the Law of the Sea Tribunal and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf” (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 483.Google Scholar

Treves, T. “Law and Science in the Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,” in Scheiber, Harry N., Kraska, James and Kwon, (eds.), Science, Technology, and New Challenges to Ocean Law (Brill Nijhoff 2015).Google Scholar

Treves, T. “UNCLOS and Non-Party States before the International Court of Justice,” in Espósito, Carlo, Kraska, J., Scheiber, H. N., and Kwon, M.-S. (eds.), Oceans Law and Policy: 20 Years under UNCLOS (Brill Nijhoff 2016).Google Scholar

Thygesen, K. and Baker, E. The Shelf Programme: A Decade of Successfully Helping to Secure the Maritime Rights of Developing Coastal States (GRID–Arendal 2015).Google Scholar

United Nations (ed.), Laws and Regulations on the Regime of the High Seas (United Nations 1951).Google Scholar

United Nations (ed.), The Law of the Sea: National Legislation on the Continental Shelf (United Nations 1989).Google Scholar

United Nations The Law of the Sea: Definition of the Continental Shelf (United Nations 1993).Google Scholar

Van Pay, B. J. “Disputed Areas Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: How Many and Will Geophysical Characteristics Matter in Their Resolution?,” in Nordquist, M. H. and Moore, J. N. (eds.), Maritime Border Diplomacy (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012).Google Scholar

Vega-Barbosa, G. “The Admissibility of Outer Continental Shelf Delimitation Claims Before the ICJ Absent a Recommendation by the CLCS” (2018) 49 Ocean Development & International Law 103.Google Scholar

Verville, E. “United States-Soviet Union, Report Number 1-6,” in Charney, I. L. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).Google Scholar

Vidas, D. “Consolidation or Deviation? On Trends and Challenges in the Settlement of Maritime Delimitation Disputes by International Courts and Tribunals,” in Boschiero, N., Scovazzi, T., Pitea, C., and Ragni, C. (eds.), International Courts and the Development of International Law: Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves (T M C Asser Press 2013).Google Scholar

Vidas, D. “The Delimitation of the Territorial Sea, the Continental Shelf, and the EEZ - A Comparative Perspective,” in Elferink, A. G. Oude, Henriksen, T., and Busch, S. V. (eds.), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (Cambridge University Press 2018).Google Scholar

Villiger, M. E. Customary International Law and Treaties: A Study of Their Interactions and Interrelations with Special Consideration of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1985).Google Scholar

Volterra, R. “Problems Arising from Submissions by States to the CLCS in Relation to Disputed Areas: A Selective Survey of State Practice to Date,” in Symmons, C. R. (ed.), Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011).Google Scholar

Waldock, C. H. M. “The Legal Basis of Claims to the Continental Shelf” (1950) 36 Transactions of the Grotius Society 115.Google Scholar

Weil, P. “Délimitation Maritime et Délimitation Terrestre,” in Tabory, M. and Dinstein, Y. (eds.), International Law at a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1989).Google Scholar

Weil, P. The Law of Maritime Delimitation: Reflections (Grotius Publications Limited 1989).Google Scholar

Weil, P. “Geographical Considerations in Maritime Delimitation,” in Charney, J. I. and Alexander, L. M. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Volume I (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).Google Scholar

Weil, P. “A propos du droit coutumier en matière de délimitation maritime”, Écrits de droit international (Presses Universitaires de France 2000).Google Scholar

Wolfrum, R. “The Role of International Dispute Settlement Institutions in the Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf,” in Lagoni, R. and Vignes, D. (eds.), Maritime Delimitation (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006).Google Scholar

Wolfrum, R. “The Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf: Procedural Considerations”, liber amicorum Jean-Pierre Cot: Le procès international. (Bruylant 2009).Google Scholar

Yanai, S. “International Law Concerning Maritime Boundary Delimitation,” in Attard, D., Fitzmaurice, M., and Gutierrez, N. A. Martinez (eds.), The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law, Volume I: The Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2014).Google Scholar